Natural resources: can supply be maintained in a world of increasing demand?

[DBT]

Can the planet continue to supply ever growing demand as developing countries raise the living standards of their citizens to a rate comparable to developed nations, assuming that population stabilizes at around 9 billion, but demand continues to grow with increases in standard of living ?

I'd say that its not likely that our ecosystems can supply the needs and wants of this level of consumption at that population figure.

 

[DBT]

Well, I'd rather be a fact-based Cornucopian than a Malthusian living in an alternate reality where we're about to run out of essentials.

Fact based? Evidence for what exactly?

The issue is not about ''running out of essentials" but meeting the needs of both a growing population and ever increasing demand as living standards are raised...the latter being far more important.

 

[Jokodo]

"Essentials" is your choice of terminology, not mine. Maybe you meant something different, but lacking psychisch powers, I can only respond to what you actually Write.

 

[Jokodo]

Specifically you were talking about "the point where demand for essentials exceeds supply", treating it as when, not if.

The Bürden of evidence lies squarely on your shoulders.

 

[steve_bank]

India is already reaching a water limit. We are seeing an increasing migration at our southern border.

The UN reports that food security was growing globally it is now decreasing due to climate change.

The goal of globalization is to bring North American and West European consumptions levels to the rest of the world. Freeb market capitalism has to grow. Historically when population gets too large something happens. Drought, famine, plague, war.

 

[DBT]

"Essentials" is your choice of terminology, not mine. Maybe you meant something different, but lacking psychisch powers, I can only respond to what you actually Write.

I was quoting you. You are the one who used the word 'essentials,' not me.

 

[Jokodo]

"Essentials" is your choice of terminology, not mine. Maybe you meant something different, but lacking psychisch powers, I can only respond to what you actually Write.

I was quoting you. You are the one who used the word 'essentials,' not me.

That's a lie. Here' the first time anyone ever mentioned essentials in the other thread: https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...s-thought-work&p=672559&viewfull=1#post672559

 

[Angra Mainyu]

"Essentials" is your choice of terminology, not mine. Maybe you meant something different, but lacking psychisch powers, I can only respond to what you actually Write.

I was quoting you. You are the one who used the word 'essentials,' not me.

That's a lie. Here' the first time anyone ever mentioned essentials in the other thread: https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...s-thought-work&p=672559&viewfull=1#post672559

In my experience, it is pretty common for people to forget who said what first, and go on instinctive lawyer mode so to speak. So, the fact that he used "essentials" first does not show that he lied. In fact, it is very probably he did not lie. Why? Because if he had known that he used "essentials" first in the other thread, he'd very probably have predicted that you would probably call him on that, making lying counterproductive.

Other than that, I would like to ask DBT what "essentials" are, and what the problems for the future are.

 

[DBT]

"Essentials" is your choice of terminology, not mine. Maybe you meant something different, but lacking psychisch powers, I can only respond to what you actually Write.

I was quoting you. You are the one who used the word 'essentials,' not me.

That's a lie. Here' the first time anyone ever mentioned essentials in the other thread: https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...s-thought-work&p=672559&viewfull=1#post672559

Yes, I used the word casually, meaning to say that supply will probably not meet demand as demand continues to grow with rising living standards in developing nations (as I had already outlined)...not that supply will run out as you flippantly replied, thereby misrepresenting my position.


That being my point of contention - ie - your comment ''a Malthusian living in an alternate reality where we're about to run out of essentials'' - which is not what I meant by my casual use of the word.

In other words, I did not say or mean that the world is going to 'run out of essentials'

That was your misrepresentation.

Well, I'd rather be a fact-based Cornucopian than a Malthusian living in an alternate reality where we're about to run out of essentials.

 

[DBT]

That's a lie. Here' the first time anyone ever mentioned essentials in the other thread: https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...s-thought-work&p=672559&viewfull=1#post672559

In my experience, it is pretty common for people to forget who said what first, and go on instinctive lawyer mode so to speak. So, the fact that he used "essentials" first does not show that he lied. In fact, it is very probably he did not lie. Why? Because if he had known that he used "essentials" first in the other thread, he'd very probably have predicted that you would probably call him on that, making lying counterproductive.

Other than that, I would like to ask DBT what "essentials" are, and what the problems for the future are.

Yes, exactly, I'd forgotten the exact wording of my remark and responded to the misrepresentation in the reply.

As for what I base my position on, that a major crisis in supply is likely, perhaps in this century. Observation, various ecological studies, the nature of our economic systems, etc.

For example:

''There is strong evidence that the growth of the world population poses serious threats to human health, socioeconomic development and the environment.1,2 In 1992 the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, signed by 1600 prominent scientists, that called attention to threats to life-sustaining natural resources.3 In 1993 a Population Summit of 58 of the world's scientific academies voiced concern about the intertwined problems of rapid population growth, wasteful resource consumption, environmental degradation and poverty.4 These reports share the view that, without stabilization of both population and consumption, good health for many people will remain elusive, developing countries will find it impossible to escape poverty, and environmental degradation will worsen.''

''There are many important interactions between population growth, consumption, environmental degradation and health. Human activity has already transformed an estimated 10% of the Earth's surface from forest or rangeland into desert. The productive capacity of 25% of all agricultural lands, an area equal to the size of India and China combined, has already been degraded.24,28 Unproductive land and food scarcity currently contribute to malnutrition among 1 billion people, with infants and children suffering the most serious health consequences.29,30''

''Of crucial importance is the path of economic development that is traversed by poor countries. China, with a population of 1.2 billion, has experienced an economic expansion of two-thirds since 1990 and a corresponding increase in consumption of many resources.76 It has surpassed the United States in consumption of grain, meat, fertilizer, steel and coal. If China's per capita oil consumption equalled that of the United States, the Chinese would consume 80 million barrels a day, far outstripping the daily world production of 60 million barrels. Social and economic progress in China and other developing countries is necessary, but, according to Brown and colleagues,76 these countries must bypass what the West has done and show how to build environmentally sustainable economies. Unfortunately, many rapidly industrializing countries are proceeding with little regard for the environment.76''

 

[DBT]

More;

''The United States is already overpopulated in the sense that we are consuming our national ecological resources at an unsustainable rate. Our growing dependence on foreign energy supplies is a prime example. We now depend on foreign imports for 28.8 percent of our energy consumption: two-thirds of our petroleum products and about one-sixth of our natural gas consumption.1Because of the abundance of our nation's resources, we have long been careless about our level of consumption, but it is the precipitous rise in the U.S. population over the last four decades that has resulted in our outstripping of our national resources. We are living beyond our means and are doing so increasingly as our population expands. This is a serious problem with major implications for future generations.''

''Nations with high consumption levels generally have large ecological footprints, i.e. environmental impact. Add to the equation a large population with a high level of consumption — as is the case with the United States — and the situation becomes unsustainable. Population growth is steadily diluting the U.S. biocapacity, leaving only about 5 hectares [about 12.4 acres] of productive land available per person. Meanwhile, the steady rise in consumption has increased Americans’ per capita ecological footprint — in part because of our growing dependence on imported energy resources — to more than 9.4 hectares [about 23.3 acres].3 In the last four decades, the U.S. has gone from a positive net ecological surplus of 2.1 hectares per capita to a deficit of -4.4 hectares per capita.4 Another aspect of this same trend into unsustainable consumption is that the U.S. per capita ecological footprint has increased gradually — six percent since 1980 — while per capita biocapacity has decreased rapidly — 26 percent — due to a 30 percent increase in the U.S. population.5''

 

[Jokodo]

That's a lie. Here' the first time anyone ever mentioned essentials in the other thread: https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...s-thought-work&p=672559&viewfull=1#post672559

In my experience, it is pretty common for people to forget who said what first, and go on instinctive lawyer mode so to speak. So, the fact that he used "essentials" first does not show that he lied. In fact, it is very probably he did not lie. Why? Because if he had known that he used "essentials" first in the other thread, he'd very probably have predicted that you would probably call him on that, making lying counterproductive.

Other than that, I would like to ask DBT what "essentials" are, and what the problems for the future are.

Yes, exactly, I'd forgotten the exact wording of my remark and responded to the misrepresentation in the reply.

As for what I base my position on, that a major crisis in supply is likely, perhaps in this century. Observation, various ecological studies, the nature of our economic systems, etc.

For example:

''There is strong evidence that the growth of the world population poses serious threats to human health, socioeconomic development and the environment.1,2 In 1992 the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, signed by 1600 prominent scientists, that called attention to threats to life-sustaining natural resources.3 In 1993 a Population Summit of 58 of the world's scientific academies voiced concern about the intertwined problems of rapid population growth, wasteful resource consumption, environmental degradation and poverty.4 These reports share the view that, without stabilization of both population and consumption, good health for many people will remain elusive, developing countries will find it impossible to escape poverty, and environmental degradation will worsen.''

''There are many important interactions between population growth, consumption, environmental degradation and health. Human activity has already transformed an estimated 10% of the Earth's surface from forest or rangeland into desert. The productive capacity of 25% of all agricultural lands, an area equal to the size of India and China combined, has already been degraded.24,28 Unproductive land and food scarcity currently contribute to malnutrition among 1 billion people, with infants and children suffering the most serious health consequences.29,30''

''Of crucial importance is the path of economic development that is traversed by poor countries. China, with a population of 1.2 billion, has experienced an economic expansion of two-thirds since 1990 and a corresponding increase in consumption of many resources.76 It has surpassed the United States in consumption of grain, meat, fertilizer, steel and coal. If China's per capita oil consumption equalled that of the United States, the Chinese would consume 80 million barrels a day, far outstripping the daily world production of 60 million barrels. Social and economic progress in China and other developing countries is necessary, but, according to Brown and colleagues,76 these countries must bypass what the West has done and show how to build environmentally sustainable economies. Unfortunately, many rapidly industrializing countries are proceeding with little regard for the environment.76''

Not even a link?

 

[bilby]

We have a readily available measure of the scarcity of commodities of all kinds - the price.

Prices for commodities tend to be cyclic. Economic growth pushes up demand, which pushes up prices, which stimulates production, which reduces prices.

We don't appear to be anywhere CLOSE to a hard resource limit for any of the commodities that are incapable of being substituted for something else. Reserves are always limited; But that's because prices haven't been high enough to bother to push us to explore and define more reserves from the basic resource.

Almost none of what we use goes away - All of the iron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, copper, zinc etc. etc. that was part of the Earth's crust to begin with is still here - and the VAST majority of it is still in the crust, as unexplored resources. Apart from trace amounts of hydrogen and helium, and the tiny amounts of stuff we used to make deep space probes, everything is still here. We cannot run out of it, unless we lack the energy and the technology to (re)concentrate it into a useful raw material form.

We have barely scratched the lithosphere, and almost completely failed to exploit the oceans.

If we run short of fresh water, we can make it from seawater for about $1.50/tonne, purified, delivered and ready to drink at the customer's kitchen sink.

If we run short of liquid hydrocarbons, we can make those from seawater too - it's not commercially viable yet, because the incredibly cheap mineral oil from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere undercuts it. As that oil runs out, shale oil becomes viable. As shale oil runs out, synthetic oil from seawater or atmospheric carbon will become viable - unless some other options are developed, which they may well be.

The only limit is energy - and energy is available in VAST quantities. It falls from the sky; and it is concentrated in uranium and thorium deposits all over the world.

If we run short of iron, we can get it from scrapyards - but realistically, there's no chance of us ever using all of the iron in the Pilbara, and that's just one of dozens of well known large ore bodies. There are certainly thousands of less well known ore bodies, for every mineral you can imagine, that nobody has explored yet, because we don't need to - the price is low, because the commodity isn't scarce, so nobody is going to bother scouring remote locations, or building infrastructure there to make mining viable. And that's true for pretty much every mineral you can imagine.

Given a population of 9 - 11 billion, each living like an American or Western European does today, we will never run out of anything. We will probably need to do more recycling than we have in the past, but that's hardly arduous. All we need to do is make sure we build the energy infrastructure necessary to keep costs down.

There's no such thing as 'overpopulation' - just under development of the resources necessary to keep a given population comfortable and happy.

 

[Jokodo]

More;

''The United States is already overpopulated in the sense that we are consuming our national ecological resources at an unsustainable rate. Our growing dependence on foreign energy supplies is a prime example. We now depend on foreign imports for 28.8 percent of our energy consumption: two-thirds of our petroleum products and about one-sixth of our natural gas consumption.1Because of the abundance of our nation's resources, we have long been careless about our level of consumption, but it is the precipitous rise in the U.S. population over the last four decades that has resulted in our outstripping of our national resources. We are living beyond our means and are doing so increasingly as our population expands. This is a serious problem with major implications for future generations.''

''Nations with high consumption levels generally have large ecological footprints, i.e. environmental impact. Add to the equation a large population with a high level of consumption — as is the case with the United States — and the situation becomes unsustainable. Population growth is steadily diluting the U.S. biocapacity, leaving only about 5 hectares [about 12.4 acres] of productive land available per person. Meanwhile, the steady rise in consumption has increased Americans’ per capita ecological footprint — in part because of our growing dependence on imported energy resources — to more than 9.4 hectares [about 23.3 acres].3 In the last four decades, the U.S. has gone from a positive net ecological surplus of 2.1 hectares per capita to a deficit of -4.4 hectares per capita.4 Another aspect of this same trend into unsustainable consumption is that the U.S. per capita ecological footprint has increased gradually — six percent since 1980 — while per capita biocapacity has decreased rapidly — 26 percent — due to a 30 percent increase in the U.S. population.5''

Short summary: the US is currently not recycling as much as it will have to in the long run.

I find that neither surprising not particularly alarming.

And you still haven't clarified what kind of essentials you are talking about

 

[DBT]

Yes, exactly, I'd forgotten the exact wording of my remark and responded to the misrepresentation in the reply.

As for what I base my position on, that a major crisis in supply is likely, perhaps in this century. Observation, various ecological studies, the nature of our economic systems, etc.

For example:

''There is strong evidence that the growth of the world population poses serious threats to human health, socioeconomic development and the environment.1,2 In 1992 the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, signed by 1600 prominent scientists, that called attention to threats to life-sustaining natural resources.3 In 1993 a Population Summit of 58 of the world's scientific academies voiced concern about the intertwined problems of rapid population growth, wasteful resource consumption, environmental degradation and poverty.4 These reports share the view that, without stabilization of both population and consumption, good health for many people will remain elusive, developing countries will find it impossible to escape poverty, and environmental degradation will worsen.''

''There are many important interactions between population growth, consumption, environmental degradation and health. Human activity has already transformed an estimated 10% of the Earth's surface from forest or rangeland into desert. The productive capacity of 25% of all agricultural lands, an area equal to the size of India and China combined, has already been degraded.24,28 Unproductive land and food scarcity currently contribute to malnutrition among 1 billion people, with infants and children suffering the most serious health consequences.29,30''

''Of crucial importance is the path of economic development that is traversed by poor countries. China, with a population of 1.2 billion, has experienced an economic expansion of two-thirds since 1990 and a corresponding increase in consumption of many resources.76 It has surpassed the United States in consumption of grain, meat, fertilizer, steel and coal. If China's per capita oil consumption equalled that of the United States, the Chinese would consume 80 million barrels a day, far outstripping the daily world production of 60 million barrels. Social and economic progress in China and other developing countries is necessary, but, according to Brown and colleagues,76 these countries must bypass what the West has done and show how to build environmentally sustainable economies. Unfortunately, many rapidly industrializing countries are proceeding with little regard for the environment.76''

Not even a link?

Missed it. Too many things going at once.

The link; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC80465/

 

[DBT]

More;

''The United States is already overpopulated in the sense that we are consuming our national ecological resources at an unsustainable rate. Our growing dependence on foreign energy supplies is a prime example. We now depend on foreign imports for 28.8 percent of our energy consumption: two-thirds of our petroleum products and about one-sixth of our natural gas consumption.1Because of the abundance of our nation's resources, we have long been careless about our level of consumption, but it is the precipitous rise in the U.S. population over the last four decades that has resulted in our outstripping of our national resources. We are living beyond our means and are doing so increasingly as our population expands. This is a serious problem with major implications for future generations.''

''Nations with high consumption levels generally have large ecological footprints, i.e. environmental impact. Add to the equation a large population with a high level of consumption — as is the case with the United States — and the situation becomes unsustainable. Population growth is steadily diluting the U.S. biocapacity, leaving only about 5 hectares [about 12.4 acres] of productive land available per person. Meanwhile, the steady rise in consumption has increased Americans’ per capita ecological footprint — in part because of our growing dependence on imported energy resources — to more than 9.4 hectares [about 23.3 acres].3 In the last four decades, the U.S. has gone from a positive net ecological surplus of 2.1 hectares per capita to a deficit of -4.4 hectares per capita.4 Another aspect of this same trend into unsustainable consumption is that the U.S. per capita ecological footprint has increased gradually — six percent since 1980 — while per capita biocapacity has decreased rapidly — 26 percent — due to a 30 percent increase in the U.S. population.5''

Short summary: the US is currently not recycling as much as it will have to in the long run.

I find that neither surprising not particularly alarming.

And you still haven't clarified what kind of essentials you are talking about

You are focusing on whatever suits your position while ignoring the information that does not. You appear to be Cherry Picking.


A UN summary of the problems;

''Should the global population reach 9.6 billion by 2050, the equivalent of almost three planets could be required to provide the natural resources needed to sustain current lifestyles.
With rises in the use of non-metallic minerals within infrastructure and construction, there has been significant improvement in the material standard of living. The per capita “material footprint” of developing countries increased from 5 metric tons in 2000 to 9 metric tons in 2017.
93% of the world’s 250 largest companies are now reporting on sustainability.

Water

Less than 3 per cent of the world’s water is fresh (drinkable), of which 2.5 per cent is frozen in the Antarctica, Arctic and glaciers. Humanity must therefore rely on 0.5 per cent for all of man’s ecosystem’s and fresh water needs.
Humankind is polluting water in rivers and lakes faster than nature can recycle and purify
More than 1 billion people still do not have access to fresh water.
Excessive use of water contributes to the global water stress.
Water is free from nature but the infrastructure needed to deliver it is expensive.

Food

While substantial environmental impacts from food occur in the production phase (agriculture, food processing), households influence these impacts through their dietary choices and habits. This consequently affects the environment through food-related energy consumption and waste generation.
Each year, an estimated 1/3 of all food produced – equivalent to 1.3 billion tons worth around $1 trillion – ends up rotting in the bins of consumers and retailers, or spoiling due to poor transportation and harvesting practices
2 billion people globally are overweight or obese.
Land degradation, declining soil fertility, unsustainable water use, overfishing and marine environment degradation are all lessening the ability of the natural resource base to supply food.
The food sector accounts for around 30 per cent of the world’s total energy consumption and accounts for around 22 per cent of total Greenhouse Gas emissions.''



Now consider the rising magnitude of these issues as living standards improve, as they should, placing ever increasing stress on ecosystems as demand goes up ii order of multiples. Imagine a population of say 9 billion living at developed nation consumption rates.

There lies the danger.

And it does not look like sufficient steps are being taken to avert a major crisis.

 

[bilby]

The use of 10 tonnes of materials by ten billion people is twelve orders of magnitude less than the size of the lithosphere - so this apparently large number is in fact 0.000 000 000 1% of the material we have available.

It's a minuscule scratch in the lithosphere. Even if we used a hundred times that each, it would barely register. If only a millionth of that material is suitably located for mining, we would still have 1,000 years supply without recycling - and obviously we can, and indeed do, recycle.

Humankind has been artificially purifying water for centuries. We can make, and deliver to the home, drinkable fresh water from ocean water at a cost of less than $2 a tonne - so in fact the infrastructure to deliver it isn't expensive, for any reasonable value of 'expensive'. A tonne is a LOT of water.

More people suffer from too much food than from too little. Famine is now a thing of the past. Sure, a lot of food goes to waste - but we have plenty left to feed everyone.

Minerals, water, and food are all in robust good supply, and there's no reasonable prospect that we will ever run out of any of them. As long as we have current technology (or better), we will be fine. The developing world lacks infrastructure and technology, but its not lacking in resources.

We don't recycle as much as we could; Because fresh resources are so commonplace as to be too cheap to make recycling viable. The fact that we don't recycle much is a strong indication that we have a glut of available natural resources. If we had real shortages, or even the impending risk of real shortages, commodity prices would make wider recycling viable. But we don't, so they haven't.

 

[DBT]

So, no problem? Business as usual?

 

[Jokodo]

More;

''The United States is already overpopulated in the sense that we are consuming our national ecological resources at an unsustainable rate. Our growing dependence on foreign energy supplies is a prime example. We now depend on foreign imports for 28.8 percent of our energy consumption: two-thirds of our petroleum products and about one-sixth of our natural gas consumption.1Because of the abundance of our nation's resources, we have long been careless about our level of consumption, but it is the precipitous rise in the U.S. population over the last four decades that has resulted in our outstripping of our national resources. We are living beyond our means and are doing so increasingly as our population expands. This is a serious problem with major implications for future generations.''

''Nations with high consumption levels generally have large ecological footprints, i.e. environmental impact. Add to the equation a large population with a high level of consumption — as is the case with the United States — and the situation becomes unsustainable. Population growth is steadily diluting the U.S. biocapacity, leaving only about 5 hectares [about 12.4 acres] of productive land available per person. Meanwhile, the steady rise in consumption has increased Americans’ per capita ecological footprint — in part because of our growing dependence on imported energy resources — to more than 9.4 hectares [about 23.3 acres].3 In the last four decades, the U.S. has gone from a positive net ecological surplus of 2.1 hectares per capita to a deficit of -4.4 hectares per capita.4 Another aspect of this same trend into unsustainable consumption is that the U.S. per capita ecological footprint has increased gradually — six percent since 1980 — while per capita biocapacity has decreased rapidly — 26 percent — due to a 30 percent increase in the U.S. population.5''

Short summary: the US is currently not recycling as much as it will have to in the long run.

I find that neither surprising not particularly alarming.

And you still haven't clarified what kind of essentials you are talking about

You are focusing on whatever suits your position while ignoring the information that does not. You appear to be Cherry Picking.


A UN summary of the problems;

''Should the global population reach 9.6 billion by 2050, the equivalent of almost three planets could be required to provide the natural resources needed to sustain current lifestyles.
With rises in the use of non-metallic minerals within infrastructure and construction, there has been significant improvement in the material standard of living. The per capita “material footprint” of developing countries increased from 5 metric tons in 2000 to 9 metric tons in 2017.
93% of the world’s 250 largest companies are now reporting on sustainability.

Water

Less than 3 per cent of the world’s water is fresh (drinkable), of which 2.5 per cent is frozen in the Antarctica, Arctic and glaciers. Humanity must therefore rely on 0.5 per cent for all of man’s ecosystem’s and fresh water needs.

those 0.5% would still be over 800 million liters or 800,000 cubic meters - a cube-shaped pool of very nearly 100 meters to both sides and in depth to every person alive, including children.
Or expressed in terms of the typical household water consumption of 140 per person and day my city council quotes: 15600 years worth of fresh water.

Humankind is polluting water in rivers and lakes faster than nature can recycle and purify
More than 1 billion people still do not have access to fresh water.
Excessive use of water contributes to the global water stress.
Water is free from nature but the infrastructure needed to deliver it is expensive.

For a given value of "expensive", yes.

Food

While substantial environmental impacts from food occur in the production phase (agriculture, food processing), households influence these impacts through their dietary choices and habits. This consequently affects the environment through food-related energy consumption and waste generation.
Each year, an estimated 1/3 of all food produced – equivalent to 1.3 billion tons worth around $1 trillion – ends up rotting in the bins of consumers and retailers, or spoiling due to poor transportation and harvesting practices

This sounds like a problem with logistics, not with inability to meet demand due to resource degradation.

2 billion people globally are overweight or obese.

Again, you were trying to argue that supply of essentials would drop below demand. How is this helping you make your case?

Land degradation, declining soil fertility, unsustainable water use, overfishing and marine environment degradation are all lessening the ability of the natural resource base to supply food.
The food sector accounts for around 30 per cent of the world’s total energy consumption and accounts for around 22 per cent of total Greenhouse Gas emissions.''



Now consider the rising magnitude of these issues as living standards improve, as they should, placing ever increasing stress on ecosystems as demand goes up ii order of multiples. Imagine a population of say 9 billion living at developed nation consumption rates.

There lies the danger.

And it does not look like sufficient steps are being taken to avert a major crisis.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Can the planet continue to supply ever growing demand as developing countries raise the living standards of their citizens to a rate comparable to developed nations, assuming that population stabilizes at around 9 billion, but demand continues to grow with increases in standard of living ?

I'd say that its not likely that our ecosystems can supply the needs and wants of this level of consumption at that population figure.

It's not an issue. When we hit a wall we'll just make do with less. The big one is food. But we're nowhere near a crisis when it comes to food. We could feed ten times as many humans. Most of the effort we put into food is luxury food production. That could be cut in an instant and we'd be just as happy. Clean water, also not an issue. It's simply a question of political motivation. We're today really good at filtering and cleaning water.

The biggest problem is global warming. But that's not a problem of scarcity. That's a problem of an over-abundance of fossil fuels. So the opposite issue